The Sword and Laser discussion

Is it just me, or are there an increasing number of films that are kind of sci-fi, but don't try to follow any set of traditional sci-fi rules? And is this a growing trend?

The only two examples I can think of at the moment are Looper and Upside Down. The former is a time travel movie, and, while time travel stories are usually easy pickings for plot hole spotters, Looper is worst than most, but pretty much states in the dialogue that you shouldn't pay any attention the time travel mechanics.

Upside Down, however completely throws gravity out of the window, not only in having two planets almost touching one another, but making it almost a magic thing by having objects from each planet only affected by the gravity of their planet.

I don't have a problem with this, if it is a trend. I really liked Looper, and I'm going to see Upside Down, but I was just curious what you guys thought about this kind of sci-fi (indeed, if you think it can be called sci-fi), and do you like it?

John wrote: "Upside Down, however completely throws gravity out of the window, not only in having two planets almost touching one another, but making it almost a magic thing by having objects from each planet only affected by the gravity of their planet."

I still get a raging headache every time I think about the movie "Another Earth" for the same reasons. I'll forgive Gallifrey appearing over head in The End of Time with no consequences, but I just couldn't bear it in a non-Whovian context.

PointyEars42 wrote: "I still get a raging headache every time I think about the movie "Another Earth""

I'm not great at reading people, but I'm sensing you're not a fan :)

Actually, Doctor Who is a good example, with it being choc-full of extremely far-fetched science. At what point do we give a pass to fiction claiming to be under the umbrella of science, despite their "science" being closer to magic.

And, nobody quote Arthur C. Clarke at me - I'm talking more in term of things we can be relatively certain about, like two planets practically kissing each other.

Hmmm I personally think that as long as a movie (or book) stays true to its own universal rules it can be both enjoyable and believable. I dont think a movie is disqualified as sci-fi just because it throws out some sense of reality. Thats what the movies are for IMO. I really liked Looper and the other movie you mention sounds interesting.

I think a lot of "rules" can be ignored, IF the focus of the film does not have anything to do with the rules.
I have only seen 1 trailer of "another earth", so I guess I only know the very basic of the story:(, but the focus doesnt seem to be on the physics, but on the people. So I think its ok.


Looper on the other hand did this very bad. The focus was on timetravel....so it should at least obey the rules it is giving itsself...but no.
"We cant kill him to get rid of its future self, because this will change the future too much"
"Hey we can cut off both his legs, so the future him cant run" -I guess this wont change his future at all......

Looper was a very enjoyable movie as long as you didn't think about the time travel bits too much and why they wouldn't work. Though really thats pretty much any movie involving time travel. The only show / movie that I've seen that at least tried to follow some sort of time travel rules was Lost with their "whatever happens happened" mantra. Everything else just kind of shrugs and does whatever with no regard to how implausible its time travel mechanics are.

John wrote: "Is it just me, or are there an increasing number of films that are kind of sci-fi, but don't try to follow any set of traditional sci-fi rules? And is this a growing trend?"

What do you mean by "traditional sci-fi" rules? I'm sort of interpreting it as "grounded in established scientific principles". If that's the case, I can't actually think of the last science fiction film that would qualify. But if you mean something else, could you elaborate?

Sorry, Joe. What I meant (and I realise this may be my view alone) is stories that are grounded in our present understanding of what is possible. No matter how fantastical some sci fi may seem, there's often a basis in real science, and a possibility, however remote, that it could actually happen in our universe.

We can be fairly confident that the two world's shown in Upside Down couldn't happen in our universe, which I guess would make it fantasy, despite its sci fi looks.

I suppose the get out clause would be different universe, where our laws of physics needn't apply.

I think you have it backwards: most films labelled "Science Fiction" are really Science Fantasy. They use the props of SF but no actual logic or science. There are really very few true SF films.

However, I don't see how either Another Earth or Upside Down are considered SF. They are pretty clearly allegorical Fantasy, with no attempt at making real science fiction stories.

Looper, however, is internally consistent. It doesn't break its own rules and the entire premise is solid. I think what's tripping most people up, though, is that the time travel mechanism in Looper is DIFFERENT from most other time travel movies. You can't apply the rules of Back to the Future or Terminator or any others to Looper, because it posits a different method.

Which is something all great SF stories do, I think. If Looper were a novel, people would be more accepting of the fact Johnson tried something new.

Edit: It's important to keep in mind that Joe is an unreliable narrator who doesn't have all the information we do. At the end of the day he misunderstands how time travel works and his "solution" to the problem doesn't work. It's incredibly bleak, actually.

I wasn't trying to imply that these films were - or claimed they were - sci-fi, but rather they have the look and feel of sci-fi, and I imagine the average movie-goer who isn't a sci-fi person will just assume it is sci-fi.

The thing is, our current understanding of the Universe doesn't rule out the possibility that there are other universes (the last theory I remember reading described a possible "multiverse" in which the universes were like bubbles), so, any sci-fi movie has an excuse for stepping beyond the realm of the physically possible, if they eventually claim it was a different universe.

As for Looper, I should point out that I loved that film. It was probably my favourite film of last year. I'm fine the filmmaker effectively saying "don't focus on the time travel, that's not the point of this movie", as he effectively did with the cafe scene, but I'd be interested to know if Rian Johnson (or, more likely, an enthusiastic fan) had a plausible explanation for every...

Scratch that. In the course of writing this post, I went through everything I thought seemed off with the time travel, and subsequently found a way to explain it within the rules of Looper. I'm that enthusiastic fan. And Looper was a bad example.

"Time travel. It'll turn your brain into spaghetti if you let it. Best not to think about it. "
- Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel (2009)

What gets me is when the explanation uses a couple of scientific terms but is clearly done by someone who doesn't understand the science. They try to explain something that is so clearly wrong, because I do have some understanding of the science behind it, that it can and sometimes does ruin the film for me. Particularly if they keep going back to that poorly researched explanation.

I much prefer 'black boxes' when the writers don't understand the science. That way I can enjoy the story, instead of being upset about the really bad science in the film. I have nothing wrong with science fantasy or non-hard scifi just as long as it doesn't try to pretend it's hard scifi.

Julia wrote: "I much prefer 'black boxes' when the writers don't understand the science. That way I can enjoy the story, instead of being upset about the really bad science in the film."

Like the "red matter" in the New Star Trek movie. to me a perfect example of that "black box" mentality being used.

In my opinion, the science is there to serve the story not vice versa.

This is where internal consistency becomes paramount. If you establish the setting as hard sci-fi then yeah, by all means be as retentive as possible with your science, but if you lean more towards sci-fi/fantasy, then you can bend it to your will. It's why the Force works in Star Wars but wouldn't in Arthur Clark's 2001.

Even the choice of how hard you want the science to be should, in my opinion again, bend to the story you want to tell. That's why people hate midichlorians in Episode 1: they try to drag a fantasy or soft sci-fi element of the story closer to hard science in a way that doesn't serve the story at all.

That's what I like about the 'black box' approach mentioned above. Used cleverly it can help preserve the appearance of rigorous science in a story. Like in 2001 where they use a literal black box for that purpose.

... This is where I get schooled that this was the expression's origin to begin with isn't it?

If you have story elements that are as close to impossible as we can imagine - like midichlorians, though I don't think of Star Wars as sci-fi - what's the distinguishing factor between fantasy and sci-fi?

I don't know. I hesitate to draw thick lines between these genres. I mean, when does the science become so far fetched, so impossible that you can't call it science anymore?

It's like a gradient scale and I guess what I'm trying to say is that where on that scale you position your setting should serve the story. As long as you do that I think you can get away with anything. It's when you try to pull your setting in either direction of where it's meant to be that things get broken.

As to where on that scale sci-fi should change its name to fantasy, I don't know. Toss in a few other genres and you can make that question even harder to answer.

Makes for an interesting discussion though.

Micah wrote: "Julia wrote: "I much prefer 'black boxes' when the writers don't understand the science. That way I can enjoy the story, instead of being upset about the really bad science in the film."

Like the "red matter" in the New Star Trek movie. to me a perfect example of that "black box" mentality being used.
"

That actually worked the opposite for me.

Trike wrote: "That actually worked the opposite for me."

Me also.

Did either of you guys watch Alias? I figured it was just a small shout out to that shows fans.

Micah wrote: "Did either of you guys watch Alias? I figured it was just a small shout out to that shows fans."

No. Alias is one program on a long list of TV shows that I'm purposely avoiding, because I don't have enough time to get hooked on another thing.

I'm also avoiding watching Fringe, playing World of Warcraft, and reading any new series (at least until I've finished the one I'm reading now).

Micah wrote: "Did either of you guys watch Alias? I figured it was just a small shout out to that shows fans."

I hated Alias. So, so dumb.

Turns out I have the same visceral reaction to anything J.J. Abrams is involved with. I discovered that I don't even have to know it's by him to dislike it.

Trike wrote: "Micah wrote: "Did either of you guys watch Alias? I figured it was just a small shout out to that shows fans."

I hated Alias. So, so dumb.

Turns out I have the same visceral reaction to anything ..."

I loved Alias. Easily one of my top 5 favorite shows of all time.

I thought Alias was great,one of my favorite series.

Charlton wrote: "I thought Alias was great,one of my favorite series."

I liked it too. Until that final season. Man that was just one season to many. IMO of course. It had some great moments but overall rates up there with Babylon 5 season 5 for me. Felt like everybody was just rushing to get done with the show so that they could move on to the next thing.

Trike wrote: "I hated Alias. So, so dumb. Turns out I have the same visceral reaction to anything J.J. Abrams is involved with. I discovered that I don't even have to know it's by him to dislike it."

Sounds like hes just not your thing. And that's okay. It really is.

John wrote: "No. Alias is one program on a long list of TV shows that I'm purposely avoiding, because I don't have enough time to get hooked on another thing.

I'm also avoiding watching Fringe, playing World of Warcraft, and reading any new series (at least until I've finished the one I'm reading now).

It seems we have a lot in common... I too am avoiding all of those same things for the same reasons...

One day soon though I hope to start watching Breaking Bad. I hear that show is just to good to miss.

See, I just jumped into all those things, and now I don't have enough free time. Breaking Bad is quite awesome though.

Rob wrote: "See, I just jumped into all those things, and now I don't have enough free time. Breaking Bad is quite awesome though."

yeah I am hoping to get it started sometime this summer when my semester winds down.

I think some people refer to this as "slipstream." It's when what would be a "literary novel" masquerades as a scifi or vice versa. The science aspects are downplayed, and the contradictions are pretty much guaranteed to piss you off if you stop to think about them for too long.

As much as I HATED Another Earth, I think we have to give these types of movies/books a little credit. They're annoying to use genre-lovers, but to people who aren't that familiar with the genre, they're a good way to pique their interest. "Maybe I *do* like scifi... I think I'll go check some out at my library." And before you know it, they could become real fans. Maybe it's just the gateway they needed. :)

At least, I like to think so. Because otherwise there's no reason for travesties like Another Earth to exist. (To see the depths of my hatred check out my archived post: http://www.traciloudin.com/2012/02/an... I also toss out some ideas on how it *could* have been a great scifi movie if it had explored some decent "What if?" questions.)

Micah wrote: "One day soon though I hope to start watching Breaking Bad. I hear that show is just to good to miss. "

Breaking Bad really is as good as its reputation. The thing I really like about the show -- well, everything is good, but the stand-out aspect for me -- is that all of the main characters is SMART. They each have their issues and failings, but no one is an idiot just to move the plot along. So refreshing.